Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010022502025 2025:GAU-AS:3416 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/754/2025 ZINNATUL ISLAM S/O.- NURUL ISLAM, R/O.- WARD NO.3, MURARA, P/O. AND P/S.- RANGIA, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN 782002 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 19 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KAMRUP AMINGAON ASSAM-78200 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD IMRAN, MR. S HAQUE,MD R ISLAM,MS F HUSSAIN,MR S M ABDULLAH P Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 26.03.2025 Heard Ms. F. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Borah, Page No.# 2/4 learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he was suspended on 29.08.2024, in connection with Kayan P.S. Case No.41/2024 under Section 354-A(2) IPC read with Sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act, for molesting a minor girl of 11 years of age, who was studying in Class-V. The order of suspension of the petitioner was issued on 29.08.2024, pending drawal of departmental proceedings. 3. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner was in custody from 01.09.2024 to 04.10.2024, on which date he was granted bail. 4. The petitioner’s further case is that the memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner on 10.12.2024, i.e., after 3 months from the date receipt of the suspension order. Further, no review had been undertaken by the State respondents for extending the suspension period of the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel thus prays for setting aside the suspension order and for reinstatement, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary & Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. In support of her submission, she has also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Md. Bulbul Choudhury Vs. The State of Assam & 2 Ors., WP(C) 3204/2024 and in the case of Nepal Chandra Mandal Vs. The State of Assam & 5 Ors., WP(C) 447/2024. 5. Mr. P.K. Borah, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department submits that though a review had been undertaken by the State respondents regarding the extension of the petitioner’s suspension period, the same had been done only on 10.01.2025. He however submits that the present case appears to be covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, quoted by the petitioner’s counsel. Page No.# 3/4 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. Para 21 of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) states as follows: “21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 8. Further, this Court in the case of Md. Bulbul Choudhury (supra) has held that when the State respondents had not submitted the charge sheet within the three months (90 days) period, from the date of coming into operation of the suspension order and the review for extension of suspension of the petitioner had not been undertaken within 90 days, the initial suspension order and the subsequent extension order/s are hit by the law laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam & Ors., WP(C) 3218/2019. The initial suspension order and Page No.# 4/4 consequential orders were accordingly set aside in Md. Bulbul Choudhury (supra). In the case of Nepal Chandra Mandal (Supra), this Court had also held that the requirement of timely review of an order of suspension is a mandatory requirement and the review done for extending the suspension, which is beyond the period of 90 days, cannot save the employer from the legal obligations cast upon them as per the law laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra). 9. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, the suspension of the petitioner could not have continued beyond the 3 months period to be counted w.e.f. 29.08.2024. As the memorandum of charge had not been served upon the petitioner within the said period of 3 months and neither had any review for extension of the suspension period undertaken within the 3 months period, the continued suspension of the petitioner being unsustainable, is hereby set aside. The respondents are accordingly directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of 2(two) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The State respondents are given the liberty to transfer the petitioner to any of it’s other offices, so that the petitioner is not able to interfere with the departmental proceedings that may be initiated against the petitioner. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant